On March 24th, 2014, a pair of African American women hailing from Towson University (lol Matt Heimbach) won the Cross Examination Debate Association’s national Championship at Indiana University. It was a first for formal college debate–a pair of African American females winning a major national debate by a 7-4 vote.
Clearly, this shows racial progress. When Africans first set foot on the shores of America–bound and shackled–they could not speak a word. They were denied education. They went through decades of oppression and eventually learned the ways of the white man’s debate, using complete sentences and well thought out, logos based argumentation and eventually triumphed over the other team, which was also black, in a debate over Presidential War Powers.
Or, they animalistically howled the words “Queer” and “Nigga” over and over again until a white man gave them a shiny object.
The Towson teams victory at CEDA is merely one such instance of this sort of blathering bullshit being legitimized by modern academia. Last year, a team of two black men from Emporia State University successfully argued to a panel of judges that the rules of formal college debate inherently promote the interests of straight, white people (Assumably, interests such as Presidential War Powers and other things that have an actual effect on the world).
This erosion of the typical debate tournament triggered a few debate coaches, one of which decided to organize a tournament wherein all participants would agree to follow the posted rules and debate the actual topic.
He was, of course, decried as a vile racist. The tournament never happened.
This shit may take the breath of a reader completely uninitiated in the ways of college speech forensics tournaments (ex. Individual Events, Debate). This author spent about a year and a half between two different schools competing in Individual Event tournaments, which, unlike debate, are centered around giving an actual speech or performing a scene, and then being judged by a panel. In Individual Events in the modern day, filthy dildocratic postmodernism and cultural marxism are far and away the topics par excellence if you want to get into finals. Most winning performance (interpretive) pieces are centered around someone being, gay, black, or disabled in some way. Nearly all non-performance pieces are about some sort of oppression. It’s been going down this road for years, and it’s one of the reasons I left. Far-leftism is the default ideology of speech forensics.
Through examples like these, we get a glimpse into a terrifying future. You see, this is all part of the game for the filthy postmodern marxist SWPL: destroy discourse. Destroy logic. Destroy debate. Debate is racist anyway. Once the idea of actually sitting down with someone and discussing politics has been reduced to making animal noises at one another and occasionally bellowing the word “oppression,” opposition can no longer exist. That’s the entire goal here.
Unfortunately, young ladies like the team from Towson are the harbingers of this future. It is not their fault–they are merely pawns. They have been taught through positive reinforcement such as a 7-4 victory decision in a college debate that howling like an animal and slamming on a desk is the way to get what you want. This is something they have been taught all their lives: Logic is the enemy and is inherently oppressive to blacks. Through infantilizing the Africans, once again, the liberal narrative advances and fortifies. The plantation grows.
In a sane world, these ladies would probably not even be in college. In a sane world, the competition would have been won by the side who argued either for or against presidential war powers. But this is not a sane world, my friends.